On Tuesday, the California Republican Party and its Chairperson, represented by former RNLA President and Board of Governors member Chuck Bell, filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandate in the California Supreme Court, challenging California's new law requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns prior to appearing on California's presidential primary ballot. As we wrote on Tuesday, this law is a blatantly political maneuver to keep President Trump off the ballot, and a federal lawsuit against it is also pending.Read more
Today, RNLA Vice President for Communications and RNC Committeewoman from California Harmeet Dhillon’s firm and Michael Best & Friedrich filed a lawsuit against California Governor Gavin Newsom seeking to enjoin California Demorats' illegal attempt to keep qualified candidates off the Presidential ballot. The lawsuit says in part:
As demonstrated by the legislative history and Governor Newsom’s public comments, the Act is a naked political attack against the sitting President of the United States. The Act subverts the franchise for cheap political gain, creates an extra-constitutional qualification for the office of President, and effectively disenfranchises voters by denying their right to associate for the advancement of political beliefs and effectively cast a vote for the otherwise qualified candidate of their choosing.Read more
In a rare move, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor on Monday to respond directly to those who have criticized him for blocking Democratic election law proposals this past week. Attacks on the Majority Leader masquerading as constructive criticisms have become increasingly ugly in recent days. A Washington Post opinion piece called him a “Russian asset,” and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough has repeatedly referred to him as “Moscow Mitch.”Read more
With the recent Supreme Court ruling on the question on citizenship status in the 2020 Census, legal scholars of all ilks have weighed in. In a recent opinion column from Hugh Hewitt, Hewitt takes an interesting approach to the implications of the decision requiring the Department of Commerce to provide a more conclusive rationale for including the question in next year’s census.Read more
As desperate Democrats seek a redo of the 2016 election, they are dedicating time, energy, and electioneering in key states across the Nation. From adding unverified names through Mandatory Voter Registration to undermining confirmed identification at the polls, Liberal activists are doing everything to ensure any upcoming red-wave doesn’t match the success of 2016. Most recently, a new proposal has been gaining traction and seeks to undermine the American voter: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).
Prior to the 2016 election, Democrat candidates traditionally respected the independence of the judiciary. Now, however, with President Trump having nominated Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, liberal legislators are angry and seeking every avenue to undermine Trump in any way possible.Read more
Even a Democratic governor recognizes the National Popular Vote movement is problematic.
On Thursday, Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak announced he is vetoing Nevada’s “National Popular Vote” bill. Governor Sisolak stated:
Once effective, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.Read more
There is a new, troubling trend among 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates this cycle: advocating and promoting a “litmus test,” or judicial philosophy benchmark, for judicial and Supreme Court candidates if he or she happens to be elected President of the United States.
Such a trend goes against the history of judicial nominations and threatens the principle of judicial independence. Some even call the implementation of a judicial litmus test as breaking the “political taboo.”Read more
This is another installment of an ongoing series of posts summarizing 2020 Democratic presidential candidates' views on judges and the courts. All posts in this series can be viewed here.
On Brett Kavanaugh: On September 27th, 2018, ahead of the impending Senate vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, Mayor Buttigieg stated on his Twitter account, “Today is a grim and dramatic living enactment of the relationship between a Congressional GOP obsessed by tactics and power, and the anguished human beings they govern.” 
On September 28th, 2018, following a statement by then-Senator Joe Donnelly that he would not be voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, Mayor Buttigieg Tweeted in support of Donnelly’s decision, “Indiana’s @SenDonnelly has made a very politically difficult decision. He is on the ballot this year. Will he be rewarded, or punished, for his principled stand? The choice is yours. Vote.”
On Neil Gorsuch: In a January 31st, 2017 posting on Twitter, Mayor Buttigieg stated, “Let's be sure the nomination of Judge Gorsuch is handled with the same fairness that Senate Republicans showed Judge [Merrick] Garland.”
His Opposition to Trump’s Nominees: In a July 9th 2018 posting on Twitter following the announcement of Brett Kavanaugh as nominee to the Supreme Court, Mayor Buttigieg stated, “This is what we’ve come to: An unpopular president, under investigation, bids an even more unpopular GOP Senate to confirm to the highest court a judge who has argued that presidents should be immune to criminal investigation.”